Posted
by
Soulskill
on Friday October 26, 2012 @10:35AM
from the super-mario-loss-leader dept.

another random user tips news that Nintendo will be selling its upcoming Wii U console at a loss in the hopes that spurring earlier adoption will work out for the company in the long run. This differs from the Wii, which made money from the start, but it's a similar strategy to those used with the Xbox 360 and PS3, which both lost money for their companies at release.
"The Japanese firm's president revealed the news after the firm cut its profit forecast. It marks a change in the company's business strategy. The decision to abandon the prospect of immediate profits in order to maximize later earnings is part of a growing trend in the tech world. Nintendo might have altered course to take advantage of the fact that neither Microsoft nor Sony have announced their next-generation consoles yet. Its pursuit of the more casual gamer means it has also had to take account of the keenly priced tablet market which attracts a similar consumer."

The controller raises a lot of interesting possibilities (though it's a little bulky for my tastes). And, unlike some, I think that the $300-$350 price tag is fine (compared to the $600 debut price tag of the PS3, that's a frickin' bargain bin price!). But I haven't been hearing a lot of buzz about it, considering it's supposed to be launching next month. I know it's supposed to be as powerful as the PS3/360. And, of course, I know about the controller. But I haven't heard much about the debut game lineup. And even gamer podcasts and shows don't seem to be giving it much attention.

Frankly I think Nintendo, for all their faults (most notably, their admittedly piss-poor online support), kind of gets the short-shrift in the gaming community. Their systems may not have the cutting edge CPU's and GPU's, but they do what they do pretty well. And they offer a pretty good bargain most of the time. I think they're underrated myself and wish they got more respect. Not every console and handheld has to cater 100% to hardcore gamers, you know.

People aren't more hyped because the console is as powerful as current gen consoles but costs more.

The special controller is crazy expensive and you are only going to get one per system. Online play is poorly supported, you can't go out and purchase all of the old school Nintendo games through an online market for the system (like literally everyone who games wants to), and the system itself doesn't have as rich a supported application set as the PS3 and the Xbox360.

People aren't more hyped because the console is as powerful as current gen consoles but costs more.

Then why are 3rd party games running at 1080p60 instead of 720p30 like they are on the PS3 / 360 ?

The special controller is crazy expensive and you are only going to get one per system.

And it's being designed so you only have to use 1 to play the games.

Online play is poorly supported, you can't go out and purchase all of the old school Nintendo games through an online market for the system (like literally everyone who games wants to),

?? The Wii-shop from the Wii carries over to the Wii U and you can port over all your downloaded games from the Wii to the Wii U. Seriously there's hundreds of games (including most old school nintendo games) that you can download.

and the system itself doesn't have as rich a supported application set as the PS3 and the Xbox360.

Probably not right away, but they are launching with: Amazon, Hulu, Netflix, Universal remote control, and a browser. What other applications are on PS3 / 360 that you feel you'd miss ?

ItsNotNintendo.app, the premier hard-core application for real, cool gamers who play Call of Duty and all other games almost exactly like Call of Duty but each one more awesome than the last because it has new guns and darker graphics (Doom 3 excluded, because you can't get much darker than that and we want to keep getting darker).

Damn, I hate sports. Or to be more accurate, I don't like sports fans. I am not a fan of playing 90+% of team sports, but a few are ok. But watching pro sports? Bleh! And the people that do are mostly just terrible.

Anyway, Sports fans will fit in much better with the Call of Modern Combat 12 fans, and as such, should stick to the Xbox or possibly the PS. Nintendo is for people that like happy, fun games.

Wii Sports is a whole different thing than the football/basketball/baseball/etc games on 360/PS. It doesn't take itself too damn seriously for starters. And personally, my favorites in Wii Sports are tennis and bowling, hardly mainstays of the big sports franchises.

In any case, even playing those games on the console might be a bit better than watching them. The post that triggered my complaint was about the lack of apps for *watching* sports on the Wii.

You can't get Amazon or Hulu outside the US. Netflix is seriously underpowered outside the US as well.

I have a Universal remote. It was $10 at what used to be Radio Shack.

I have a browser in everything. Even my microwave can run Chrome. The shittiest browser I've ever used, and I include the one I wrote in College using BCB+, was the whatever the fuck Nintendo has on the Wii. The browser on my WATCH is better and it doesn't even have an Internet connection.

"You can't get Amazon or Hulu outside the US. Netflix is seriously underpowered outside the US as well."

I live in Canada - actually you can. You just have to know how:)

"I have a Universal remote. It was $10 at what used to be Radio Shack."

I have one too, and it is a $200 (now $179) Harmony that configures my Sony stereo, PS3, Wii, and Pansonic TV for usage. I'd rather the TVii if it works as it has both Bluetooth and IR and currently my Harmony only supports IR

Yeah, I could set up a proxy no problems. You and I can, but you can't honestly expect the Great Market to do that. I can instead get anything I want without market restrictions using my black box, which outputs full 1080p.

I'm not sure why you'd spend more on a remote than on components. That $10 job is a learning remote and controls every box I have -- my Panasonic TV and BR, my black box, the cable box, and the receiver.

Bimbo Newton Crosby, you have hardware that will be playing X360 games from last year along with a SERIOUSLY confusing lineup...Bayonetta 2 an exclusive? WTF? I thought Nintendo was the family friendly one, some chick wearing her hair for clothes and doing everything as fetish fuel is a launch title?

But here is the UGLY truth Nintendo and the rest don't want to admit...in a dead economy its gonna be hard enough to sell, but the simple fact is we've gone just about as far as we can go with regards to graphic

Have you seen the 3DS store? The selection (at least here in the states) is abysmal. Nintendo has a huge selection of old, classic games but they're just not coming to the system and it drives me crazy.

Have you seen the Xbox Arcade store? Or the Xbox Media Apps? Between those there are something like 600+ inexpensive/free apps to go along with the ~1000 disc based games. Seems like a pretty decent catalog to me, given it's a game console, not a tablet. Sure, they don't have 50 different types of fart app, and no one really cares.

But speaking of tablet - it will be interesting to see whether MS can make SmartGlass work. Basically use a free app on your existing tablet or phone from any manufacturer ra

You can't compare. I mean, I'm sure a lot of casuals won't care (And that's why Nintendo will have it much harder this generation), but playing without dedicated buttons and analog controllers is bullshit. Only a limited set of genres can successfully be played with only a touchscreen.

The controller raises a lot of interesting possibilities (though it's a little bulky for my tastes). And, unlike some, I think that the $300-$350 price tag is fine (compared to the $600 debut price tag of the PS3, that's a frickin' bargain bin price!). But I haven't been hearing a lot of buzz about it, considering it's supposed to be launching next month. I know it's supposed to be as powerful as the PS3/360. And, of course, I know about the controller. But I haven't heard much about the debut game lineup. And even gamer podcasts and shows don't seem to be giving it much attention.

Frankly I think Nintendo, for all their faults (most notably, their admittedly piss-poor online support), kind of gets the short-shrift in the gaming community. Their systems may not have the cutting edge CPU's and GPU's, but they do what they do pretty well. And they offer a pretty good bargain most of the time. I think they're underrated myself and wish they got more respect. Not every console and handheld has to cater 100% to hardcore gamers, you know.

I think you've kind of answered your own questions. $300-$350 for a console with the same power as consoles that have been out for five years (and that you can get for less). A focus on casual gamers for the previous console generation (or two), which doesn't exactly attract a lot of attention in the gaming world. A control scheme significantly different from the other main consoles, which means it will only really shine with games exclusive to that console - but a worrying lack of information on launch and first-party titles doesn't exactly instill confidence that there will be a decent library.

Now news that they are going to release an under-powered console, with a limited selection of games, at a loss. That doesn't exactly help me feel confident about the future of the console (or of Nintendo, for that matter). It will probably do just fine, but I don't really see much to get excited about. I know lots of people that bought a Wii, used it for a few months, and basically gave up on it because every game that was released that made use of the unique control scheme seemed to be more of a tech demo than a game. Maybe some really cool games did eventually come out, but if so it was long after interest had waned. The WiiU seems to be a repeat of that - interesting concept, great potential, but unless they have some full-fledged, finished games at launch that make good use of the controllers, it's not going to get much attention from the gaming community.

i have an x-box, PS3 and apple TV with ipad 2 and 2 iphone 5's in the house. gaming the x-box and iphones are my favorite. the A6 CPU is right about the xbox 360 level as well and i can take it everywhere i go and the games are CHEAP

From the small sample size I can work with (that is my friends that do play games). I would guess nobody cares because the controller is pants taco retarded.That's about it. Most people are semi-excited about what sort of games Nintendo might bring to the console. But any hope is crushed when one realizes that most games will have gameplay mechanics based around the controller shoehorned into them.

Also, I suspect that a majority of 3rd party titles will be a bunch of rehashed ports. Nobody will design a new

Nobody gets hyped about *any* game system until there is a game, exclusive to that platform, that is interesting. If a new game comes out, and I can buy it for $60 for my current console, or $60 + $300 for the Wii U, it's not hard to guess which option I'll pick.

As far as 'selling at a loss' goes - hasn't every console from every manufacturer, way back to the N64, claimed that?

People aren't more hyped because console gaming just isn't that interesting anymore. In our house we have a Wii and a PS3. My kids have iPod touches, my wife has an iPad. Lots of video games are played in my house - all of them on the handheld devices. I'm the only one who ever powers up the PS3 anymore and that's to play Rocksmith once or twice a month.

The console makers aren't just competing with each other, they are also competing with platforms that have free and very low cost games. I really have a hard time spending more than $10 for a game these days. There are just too many awesome low cost choices out there these days and I don't have enough time to take advantage of all of them.

My kids have iPod touches, my wife has an iPad. Lots of video games are played in my house - all of them on the handheld devices.

How well do platformers and fighting games work on a device whose only input is a flat sheet of glass? I tried playing some classic games on my Nexus 7, but my thumbs kept missing the buttons on the on-screen gamepad because the screen gave me zero tactile feedback as to where my thumbs were.

People often think that michelin stars are about getting 3 stars. Everyone knows that 3 is the best but then why would anyone ever bother with 1 and 2 star restaurants? You don't bother with the silver and bronze medal winners do you?

In reality, the order is this:

1 star: Excellent restaurant of its category, worth a visit (when you are in the same area.

People aren't more hyped because console gaming just isn't that interesting anymore. In our house we have a Wii and a PS3. My kids have iPod touches, my wife has an iPad. Lots of video games are played in my house - all of them on the handheld devices.

Wow. I am different than other people...

I own a smartphone. Would love to have a few games on it for those times when I'm in a wait room for the dentist or something. Can't find a single that doesn't drive me nuts, except for solitaire. Touchscreens suck as a game interface, at least I think so.

The single best interface for games is a keybaord in mouse. Failing that, a joypad or joystick will do. But a touchscreen??? I honestly assumed nobody who actually played video games made the transition until

The Wii had a plethora of bad games, it ended up being Gamecube Redux in terms of software and Nintendo's first party games have been getting lower in quality every generation outside of mario. Starfox has been butchered by miyamoto, Zelda has learned nothing from other action games in how to do dungeon crawling right. Nintendo is stuck in the past.

If I were Nintendo I would split the Zelda franchise into hardcore and casual. Zelda has not grown as other gam

Because many of us bought into the Wii hype, were bitten by poorly implemented controls and worse 3rd Party support, a flood of shovelware, plus the fact that many of us already own a console that will feature many of the games we want ported over without any loss of quality, better online support, and doesn't require us to switch HDMI cables to support another box.

Enough reasons?

How about... it could also be the $299/349 pricetag and the raise of game prices to $59.99 in a bad economy, not having as much

For all the lack of "hype" (I'd agree with you in North America, at least) they still seem to have sold out, and according to Fudzilla [fudzilla.com] Nintendo will be hard pressed to keep up with demand. So... how much advertising and marketing do you throw out there when you can't even keep up, as is? Kind of like throwing money away.
That being said I've seen a lot about Zombi U, Nintendo Land, and some Nintendo Mario game?
The major attribute that Nintendo has going for it (outside of the current large Wii audienc

Consoles are supposed to showcase cutting edge graphics, not simply play catch up to competitors products that are already long in the tooth. As for the controller? Its a gimmick. If I want hand held gaming I'll use a smartphone, and if I want proper HD gaming I have it on a TV/monitor thanks. Nintendo say its for 2 to play , yeah right, I'm sure one person suffering a small handheld screen is SOOOoo much better than simply split screening the TV. Not.

Just like the Wii! And the GameCube! And the N64! Yet, somehow, none of these "interesting possbilities" ever seem to pan out into a large library of games.

Really? I could swear there was a MASSIVE library of games out there that would be mostly unplayable without analog controls. Remember, that was the hallmark feature of the N64 controller. Yes they didn't invent it, but they sure started a trend that everyone else followed. Not sure what you are referring to on the GameCube. I don't remember any supposedly "killer" feature of that system's controller. As for the Wii, I think the jury is still out on that. You need to wait a generation or two to see what (if

Because the Wii sucked. First party games were great, but the online experience universally sucked across the platform. Third party games, when released for Wii at all, were appalling compared to their competing console counterparts. The Virtual Console is one of the coolest ideas I've ever seen in a console, but Nintendo said "screw the US" and released a paltry number of games for sale.

After my incredible disappointment with the Wii, and the now completely useless PS3 I bought, I'm pretty certain I'll

For me a lot of things add up. Note that I was excited about the original Wii, and still like it a lot.

The controller seems much more like a gimmick to me. I liked the motion control possibilities of the first one (and it was put to some good use, if never quite what could have been IMO), but this seems a lot less useful. Oh, there certainly are some uses, it may be very useful for a few games. But I see it being less used than the motion control.

One thing that has me confused about the new controller is that its design goals are completely the OPPOSITE of the Wii's controllers.

With the Wii, the goal was to de-empahasize the technology and make games controlled by natural body motions - you look at the TV and don't focus on the controller. With the Wii U they are now sticking a cumbersome tablet with display in both hands so that you are not only required, but encouraged to look down and treat it as a separate mobile device.

Hyped? Pre-sales sold out a month ago. I don't know how much more hype people expected there to be?!? The Amazon and ebay 3rd party sales are already looking to be gouging people by $50-100.

The other interesting bit here is the sale at a loss. If it's less than 10% than the loss will be made up by the the change in value of the yen versus the dollar over the next few months. Add to that manufacturing cost cutting and it will be to profit far faster than the PS3 or XBox.

Maybe because the wii was as disappointing as the Obama administration. It seemed revolutionary, everything that was wrong was going to be changed, it was like nothing before it. And it had a few hits, and was generally a positive experience, but looking back it didn't quite live up to our expectations. And especially as of late, we can't remember the last time we were impressed.

If I had to do it again, I'd probably make the same choice in both categories, but I'm not jazzed up about it. And in the c

It's not unfair, it's an expected part of the intentional business decision. If the casual market has moved on to tablets and smartphones though that very successful short and medium term decision mightn't have been so great in the long term.

I was going to down-mod you as troll or flamebait but fuck it...I'll respond instead. I'll probably regret it later.
I was a Wii early adopter. Had it reserved ahead of schedule and skipped the lines to just walk in and pick it up on day one. We have probably 50 games for it. Up to that point, I'd never bought a current gen console. I've never invested so much money in a console platform. I bought a PS1 when the PS2 came out. But when the Wii was coming out, I couldn't wait. Because it was that interesting. It was a game changer. Now you've got kinect and move and you can see how this thing forced Sony and Microsoft to innovate.

And our Wii gets played almost daily. Between my kids, the wife, and me, it gets plenty of use. Still.

So you think the Wii sucks. You and your XBOX/PS3 brethren, most likely. But "sucks" isn't an objective measure, is it? It doesn't suck...for me and my family and our friends and their families because I know a lot of them that still play.

But I have ZERO interest in the Wii U. Not because it sucks. But because...well, why should I care? It's a Wii with a better CPU & GPU and a tablet controller. Okay. But people who bought the Wii in the first place aren't graphics snobs. Oh, wait. Many of them must be, right? Because 80 million people have dust covered Wiis that they don't play with any more. What a ridiculous statement. If that were even remotely true, the market for new & used Wii games would be nonexistent. Any new game released (if there were any) would be sold for $1.99. And used games would sell for a nickel. But last time I walked through a local Game Stop there were still rows and rows of shelves with new & used Wii games still selling for typical prices. Because it's still a viable market. Because people still use their Wiis.

But again, what does the Wii U offer? I don't care about super awesome triangle counts and NOW WITH EVEN MORE PIXEL SHADERS!!! Wooh, who gives a fuck?! People who just want to look at a screen and think, "sweet jesus that's a beautiful looking game." Guess what? That's what my gaming PC is for. It can drive higher than 1080p resolutions and do multi-monitor gaming and makes the power of the XBOX/PS3 look exactly like they are: years old and obsolete.

Nintendo forgot their market. The new controller is the *only* remarkable feature of the Wii U. And it's not that big of a deal, really. Sorry to say it, but there's just nothing revolutionary about it. It's an evolutionary product. It's a "Version 2.0" that should be a point release if we are honest about it. And it gets exactly the hype it deserves...which is very little.

Even though I somewhat agree with you, bear in mind that a better CPU/GPU allows for new kinds of games. I, for instance, love my Nintendo DS but it's painfully obvious when I play a GameBoy Advance game. It's not only better graphics: GBA's gameplay is much worse than that of the DS.

Sure, it won't be a jump as remarkable as that of the SNES vs. Nintendo 64, but better hardware allows for improved gameplay.

I'm curious what you mean by "gameplay" here, because I'm having a hard time calling the gameplay "worse". Sure, GBA games may not be as "advanced" (for lack of a better word) as a DS game, but the FF re-releases, the Mario re-releases, Kirby, Zelda, Metroid, Megaman EXE, Megaman Zero, Harvest Moon, I can't really say that using my DS has in any way made those games less playable.

But those are just a small subset of available games, and this is just my personal experience, so perhaps yours has been diffe

"I don't care about super awesome triangle counts and NOW WITH EVEN MORE PIXEL SHADERS!!! Wooh, who gives a fuck?! "

Err, people who want decent graphics? Sure , gameplay is important, but there are many 1990s DOS games with damn good gameplay. Why not go invest in a 15 year old PC for $2 and install every game from that era you can find for peanuts if you don't give a damn about the visuals?

Well as a parent I'd agree with a lot of what you said. I bought ours in 2006, and in the last couple of year our Wii has been one of those collecting dust due to it being noisy. I finally decided to do brain surgery on it, and fixed the noisy drive, and it is now being played in again.

All that being said, I preordered the Wii-U, and did so for a few reasons:

1) We have Netflix, a drive full of movies, BBC and a pile of other things (nope, no cable:), a bunch of hardware, that I'd like to consolidate and

Asymmetrical gameplay elements = marketing speak for 'oh shit, they realized our console couldn't support more then one controller without massive resource hits.' It's a work around for a badly designed novelty. It's like shipping a wii, then forcing players 2-4 to use gamecube controllers while one player gets to use the motion controls to play like the console advertised.

I'm going to have to disagree a little here. The controller and the uprated graphics are the only really new features of the WiiU, correct. But the controller does bring a whole lot to the equation. It's like the difference between the Game Boy Advance and the Nintendo DS. When you boil it down the only "real" functional differences between those two systems for most people is the DS has two more buttons, a more powerful processor and the addition of the touchscreen. From an experience standpoint the t

A spec jump does something important for Nintendo. As the casual market moves on to tablets and smartphones, they need to gain back favor with "core" gamers. The Wii's low specs in comparison to the 360 and PS3 really hindered it in this area, because almost every time a game came out for all three platforms, the Wii version paled in comparison to the other two--both from a graphical standpoint and because the games weren't designed with motion controls in mind to begin with. It becomes even more obvious that Nintendo are looking to court the traditional gamers when you look at the Pro controller, which looks just like a 360 controller.

The core gamer audience wants Halo, Call of Duty, etc., and now Nintendo will not only be able to say they have them, but that they have better versions of those games. Will it pay off? Time will tell. I hope it does, because even though I've been greatly disappointed with Nintendo this last generation (both with the Wii and the DS/3DS), they're much more innovative and take bigger risks than Sony and Microsoft. The Wii helped Nintendo get a ton of cash, because it always sold at a profit. Frankly, they probably needed it after being slaughtered by Sony for two generations. They can afford to lose money for a few quarters, and I hope they'll be able to weather out the storm and come out on top. Of the three, I trust them the most not to dick around with the customer.

The real worry for Nintendo is that Sony and Microsoft will probably come out with even more powerful systems, and the Wii U will be in the same spot as the Wii: significantly weaker and receiving inferior ports.

I should have made it clear that I was specifically talking about hardware. On the software side, yes, Sony has been surprisingly good about trying new things (or allowing new things to be tried), especially compared with how they were in the PS1/2 days. For what it's worth, I have all three consoles. My Wii never gets played.

The gamepad isn't that big of a deal, for someone that has a family? Have you ever played a game with your kids and realized that finding a compromise for making the game as challenging for you and the kids is almost impossible? Watching some Nintendo Land games and the new Super Mario Bros. demonstrated that the additional gamepad can easily break down that barrier. The idea of having to keeping the kids alive in Super Mario Bros. by placing platforms under em can be very challenging in itself. Rayman Lege

They said the wii had potential for motion as well. In all the years it was out, very, very few games came anywhere near that. Most used motion as little as possible. They make not good consoles, but novelty based ones, and then short change on specs to get costs low as possible. I mean, compare 3ds specs to any phone or rival handheld, it's vastly outdated. The wii was the same: push the novelty, and deflect the power arguments. I don't see anything in the wii u that makes me think anything has chang

Thankfully, we don't rely on the "people" you cite for informed decisions, since clearly they are incapable of forming opinions through a rational thought process.

Also, it's only a gimmick if it's used as a gimmick. The Wiimote is not a gimmick (unlike the ridiculous number of gimmick peripherals Nintendo puts out every generation). It's what makes the platform what it is, since it defines and informs the behavior of nearly every game. That stands in contrast to the PS3's Move, which was only ever a slap-in feature that served no important purpose for the platform as a whole, or even the Kinect, which, while very impressive technologically, doesn't do much outside of a handful of games (though that sounds like it may change in the next generation with Kinect 2?).

Long story short, grow up a bit more and stop buying into marketing. Though I'll readily admit that the last few years on the Wii haven't been great for more-than-casual gamers, it still had quite a few excellent titles that came out for it in the first few years, and was well worth the purchase price. When you're mature enough to think through these things with a degree of intellectual honesty while analyzing the actual good and bad aspects of the various alternative choices, you'll be a lot happier (as will those around you, since nobody likes vitriol and rabid fanboyism).

Disclaimer: I own all three current-gen consoles and am currently not planning to pick up the Wii U since it can't act as a drop-in replacement for my Wii (lack of Gamecube support, of which I still have several games that I want to work through "soon").

While those are interesting (I was aware of the EyeToy but not with how early the Move was being discussed), this isn't a question of who came up with what or when. This is a question of how they are using that technology. The Move served no significant purpose in the context of the PS3 platform. It was only ever used as a gimmick peripheral. That's all I was getting at. I'm sure it's impressive technology, and I'm not surprised to learn that they were working on it years in advance of its debut, but none o

The Wiimote's pointer functions are used in very few games and in some of them it's completely contrived when they do ([optional prefix] Super [optional Paper] Mario [optional suffix] [optional number] for instance).

The Wiimote's motion controls are used in very few games. Up until the launch of the Wii Motion Plus, it was implemented poorly. Example: The Legend of Zelda: Poor GameCube Port (aka Twilight Princess), which also suffers from the pointer issue previously mentioned.

I don't know they have quite a few games on launch or thereafter. Some great ones for kids, some for adults. Darksiders 2, Ninja Gaiden 3, Mass Effect 3 (may not be the best example if you have played the other two on a different system), Batman: Arkham City (Special edition, whatever the hell that means). I think it'll be a good system, but what do I know. I just got a 360 last year for Christmas.

The main reason I'm not excited about the Wii U is because none of the launch titles interest me. Sure the new Super Mario Bros game is nice, but I'm not buying a whole new console just for that. I'm sure I'll get one eventually, but at the moment I have such a backlog of games for my current-gen systems that I don't need to run out and buy another. There's just not enough of a 'wow factor' to make me grab one on launch day.

Agreed. I LOVE Nintendo games myself and am thrilled you have backwords compatibility with pretty much everything that doesn't use the GC ports, but as of right now I'm waiting for more games. I think the price is fair and they'll get my dollars at some point (once we have an HD Metroid, F-zero, Zelda / Mario / Smash Bros ) but for me to buy in I really need at least 3 games available I NEED to play before I make the jump.

The sad thing is, some of the games which I've enjoyed the most were on the Wii (Red Steel 2, Legend of Zelda: Skyward Sword, 007 Goldeneye) and it seems that that style of gameplay is not being carried on for new games on the Wii U

Article mentions 250GBP for the unit which is about $ 400 US. That seems like a hefty tag for a Nintendo, which historically has been cheaper than MSFT and Sony. Game pad is another 160 $ for standalone play.

500$ buys me about 10 new video games or 15-20 sale games for my 360 or steam account, I probably won't be running out to pick this up.

That's not how it works. You can't deduce the price in your country by converting from a known currency. It wouldn't surprise me if it ends up costing only $250 or $300 in the US. Consumer electronics are generally much more expensive in Europe than in the US.

Some reasons for this price difference include different expectations of warranty, more effort needed for translation of the user interface, whether sales tax is included in the price (Europe) or not (USA), distance from the factories in China, and the like.

Butthurt Xbox360 and PS3 owners spreading FUD about the new Nintendo system now that they have to comment about how gameplay is more important than graphics, or dumbass writers who will say anything to have people read their articles?

Do we even know the specifications of the Wii U's GPU to make such comparisons?

It has more memory (about twice as much, if you remove the 1 GB reserved for the system) and a more modern and faster GPU than the PS360 but the CPU is lacking even compared to that of the 360. In the end it makes the console a bit faster but not by much and it will have to compete with the next generation of Sony and MS consoles which are expected in about a year or so.

It has more memory (about twice as much, if you remove the 1 GB reserved for the system) and a more modern and faster GPU than the PS360 but the CPU is lacking even compared to that of the 360.

Do you have a source for the CPU ? I never found anything that stated how fast it is and how many cores only that it's an IBM PowerPC chip (which isn't surprising since the Gamecube, Wii and X-Box 360 all use some derivative of that).

As for RAM keep in mind MS and Sony reserve memory for their systems as well, they just don't tell us how much.

Do you have a source for the CPU ? I never found anything that stated how fast it is and how many cores only that it's an IBM PowerPC chip (which isn't surprising since the Gamecube, Wii and X-Box 360 all use some derivative of that).

Butthurt Xbox360 and PS3 owners spreading FUD about the new Nintendo system now that they have to comment about how gameplay is more important than graphics, or dumbass writers who will say anything to have people read their articles?

Do we even know the specifications of the Wii U's GPU to make such comparisons?

The Wii U being "As powerful as the PS3 / 360" is FUD. It's more powerful and really that isn't hard to do on a budget, considering those consoles are both over 6 years old. One other telling factor is if you notice the 3rd party games that are multiform COD, AC3, etc... are running natively at 1080p60 on Wii U and not on the PS3 / 360. This is also with first generation non-optimized code for the Wii U, pretty safe to say it IS more powerful than it's Current gen rivals.

The article you are referencing says that the Wii U's graphics processor could be "at least a two generations ahead" of the existing consoles. This is not the entirety of the console, and was simply refering to the "shader capabilities, shadowing and lighting effects" and only then it's considering a "generation" to being a new version of Direct X, which is not nearly the same as what a generation is in the normal console sense.

This is not only a miss leading comparison, it has no really baring of processi

We don't know much of anything about the hardware (besides a rough idea of the CPU and some info on the RAM), but from the little I've been able to gather, this is how it is:

The Gamecube, PS2 and Xbox were essentially the same generation. While they were slightly different in terms of power, they're close enough to be the same "generation", tech-wise. Wikipedia labels this as Gen 6.

The PS3 and Xbox 360 were a full generation advance over their predecessors. But the Wii was not - it's essentially an overcloc

It *is* a little underpowered for a system coming out in 2012, but honestly it's powerful enough. We've reached a bit of a plateau with graphics on consoles. PS3 and 360 games look *damn good*. If the WiiU can do that, people will be happy.

The bigger problem for the WiiU is that I think the console market has changed. People have SO MANY gaming options these days that game consoles just aren't as interesting as they used to be. Especially for the price. Nintendo wants to sell this thing for $400, but that buys you an iPad.

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft need to realize that they don't have the gaming market to themselves anymore. Not like they used to, anyway. And in this economy, cost is king. If they think they are going to be selling new consoles for $400, they are nuts.

Honestly, I think that both Sony and Microsoft should keep their current consoles alive indefinitely. I mean, why not? Keep lowering the price, and keep them alive. I'd love to be able to pick up an fully-loaded 360 with a Kinect for $100 in 2016, and still have new games coming out for it. Like I said, we've reached a bit of a plateau with consoles. Why not stay on that plateau for a while?

Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft need to realize that they don't have the gaming market to themselves anymore

What goes around, comes around e.g. a decade ago...

"Nintendo and Sony need to realize that they don't have the gaming market to themselves anymore"

...which is precisely how Microsoft stole the rug from under them with the 360. Now the three companies are losing ground to Apple and Google.

I wonder if there will be another cycle in the the next decade or if one or more of the companies fold or are taken over? Nintendo seems the weakest but Sony seem more likely to leave the games industry after having

Exactly how did Microsoft "[steal] the rug from under" Nintendo (or even Sony)?

The Wii has still outsold both of the other consoles by a large margin: 97 million Wii/67 million 360/64 million PS3).I don't know the game sales statistics and I imagine Nintendo loses out there but they certainly aren't weak if they have machines in more living rooms.

I think the tablets stealing the casual gamer market concept is largely overhyped. At best I suspect it's competing with the handheld market.I'm fairly certain tha

Nintendo wants to sell this thing for $400, but that buys you an iPad.

How many players can use that iPad at once? The Wii U is also compatible with Wii Remotes and Wii Remote extension controllers, such as the Classic Controller Pro, making it nice if you have friends over who don't own or didn't bring iPads.

N64 *is* a little underpowered for a system coming out in 1996, but honestly it's powerful enough. We've reached a bit of a plateau with graphics on consoles. PS and Saturn games look *damn good*. If the N64 can do that, people will be happy.

The bigger problem for the N64 is that I think the console market has changed. People have SO MANY gaming options these days that game consoles just aren't as interesting as they used to be. Especially for the price. Nintendo wants to sell this thing for $250.00, but that buys you a Nomad.

Nintendo, Sony, and Sega need to realize that they don't have the gaming market to themselves anymore. Not like they used to, anyway. And in this economy, cost is king. If they think they are going to be selling new consoles for $250, they are nuts.

Honestly, I think that both Sony and Sega should keep their current consoles alive indefinitely. I mean, why not? Keep lowering the price, and keep them alive. I'd love to be able to pick up an fully-loaded PS with a G Con gun for $100 in 2001, and still have new games coming out for it. Like I said, we've reached a bit of a plateau with consoles. Why not stay on that plateau for a while?

^ TFTFY:P I understand the proliferation of mobile devices and entertainment options present a new challenge to consoles, but gamers are still clamoring for them. It seems to me that consoles persist mainly due to exclusive gaming networks, exclusive content downloads, and DRM that creates entry-level barriers to modding/copying/porting. These are the same weapons that have held off the threat of beefy PCs with better specs, for at least a decade...I assume there are even more lock-in strategies I'm not

Seriously am I suppose to hold the iPad as a controller and move it around while I play a game on my TV? How am I going to play fighting games? 10 hit combo? Is an iPad gonna have the same games? Why would I buy and iPad and have a half ass gaming experience compared to a dedicated system. I'd rather have the right tool or the job than some half ass attempt from a text and video consumption pad.

We've only reached a plateau with console graphics because the consoles are all old. It's also been dragging down the PC gaming market as a result, since developers all aim for the lowest common denominator, in this case being the xbox and ps3.

So yes, the WiiU might be OK for a year or so, being a system with competitive or slightly better graphics compared to xbox and ps3, but they'll hit the same wall as before when the next gen stuff comes out. Basically, three years from now, developers will be creati

Because my kids and I still enjoy the old Wii, and I like to be able to hang on to the old games and controllers. Also my wife wants Netflix but I don't want yet another device cluttering up the TV shelf space. So the WiiU fits the bill.

The 3DS was profitable at $250, but it sold slowly so Nintendo reacted by cutting the price to spur sales and put 3rd party developers at ease. They're not going to make the same mistake twice, so launching the WiiU cheap at a temporary loss is a good way to keep sales brisk until component prices fall.

Considering Gamestop alone has ~250k people on the wait list for the console, I think its chances are pretty good.

The 3DS was by far the worst console launch by Nintendo, possibly even of all game consoles.
The release titles were disappointing, the follow ups mostly so, and they were quick to release a second version (the 3DS XL).

I have a feeling we're going to see something similar with the Wii-U, as it's already doing the first part (horrible launch titles).
I used to be a huge Nintendo fanboy growing up, but as of late, Nintendo seems to have forgotten why we were all fans in the first place.

The answer was definite "no" with the Wii, but now it's much closer to a "yes" (especially if you want 2 players)

The trouble is that there aren't enough major label PC games that support two players on one monitor. Comparatively few PC games are in genres designed around multiple players on one monitor, such as fighting games or cooperative platformers. What's the PC counterpart to New Super Mario Bros. Wii or Super Smash Bros. Brawl? Because PCs are traditionally associated with desks, not living rooms, major PC game developers have tended to concentrate on FPS, RTS, and other genres dependent on asymmetric informati